Fighters without a shield

[Konoko]

Hi

I would like to har more opinions on the idea of fighters going without a shield.

Fist of Fluff or Karkas or someone (I'm too lazy to search for it) posted semi-recently that he gave up his shield and has been better off.

On other other thread, Michael posted something similar:
Once you get a fair amount of defence I find that a shield is not worth using because of the regia loss. In fact it pisses me off that shields are more effective for healers than they are for fighters. Given your piss poor defence and the fact that most healers dont swing much, you get the upside without the down side.

I stopped using my shield a while ago, and have not missed it.

And Taryn agreed:
And I entirely agree with Michael saying that for fighters with "a fair amount of defence" the shield is probably useless. For such fighters, most creatures will probably either only luck hit (which the shield won't change) or only luck miss (which again the shield won't change). I'd say the shield was only useful for creatures which otherwise would hit in the 10-25% range, which won't be many for such fighters.


Any other opinions?

And what are we going to call "a fair amount of defence"?


I recently (about 3-4 weeks ago) accidently got rid of my shield. Don't ask how - I was half asleep and not paying attention :)
Anyways, I thought I'd try life without it. I could have just bought it back and not equipped it but I'm saving for my goss so didn't want to impact that right now.

I know without the shield you get a bit of regia/balthus back. I haven't done detailed checking yet as to how much for me. I already have tons of regia vs balthus so I'm not too worried about regia increases as it's quite fast for me already.


What kind of differences are there between being shielded and shieldless?


thanks!

Konoko

[Kiriel]

I've been kicking around the idea of selling my shield too. I have quite a bit of defense now and I doubt it's really doing me much good. The extra pack slot would be nice too. Currently I'm on a 50 detha training spurt (actually 50 Michael but you get the idea). I think I'll probably sell my shield when I'm done with that, possibly sooner if I pass 5th first :)

Figure the shield is worth 5 detha (not sure if that's accurate but it's what I was given to believe). If you have enough defense (combined balthus and detha) that it gives you less than a 1% bonus, it doesn't seem like it should be worthwhile. Really I would think it'd need to be at least 5-10% to be worth the use of it given the regia hit it'll give you.

I think I'll try living without my shield for a week and see if I miss it.

[Konoko]

Kiri posted:
I think I'll try living without my shield for a week and see if I miss it.

I don't miss mine at all. Although I'm not exactly out of the library lots to experiment. I was clanning a bit on Sunday (over 2 hours) and I wasn't looking for my shield. I've actually kind of forgotten about it.

But in the back of my mind as soon as I fall I start thinking if it would have happened if I had my shield... :)

Konoko

[Aravir]

I have a shield, but I stopped using it shortly after I bought it. I found that it was doing more harm than good--the small increase in defense wasn't enough to make up for the reduction to my balance recovery.

Besides, shields are so unfashionable!

[Fist of Fluff]

Originally posted by Konoko the Lazy [:D]


Fist of Fluff or Karkas or someone (I'm too lazy to search for it) posted semi-recently that he gave up his shield and has been better off.



It was Karkras who posted that he no longer uses a shield. He dropped it more for style than anything, since he's got the gossamer-wielding swashbuckler Fen look going. Im more of an axe or sword-and-shield type, myself.

I'll hold on to my shield for now since I no longer see a much of a difference in my balance with or without it and the idea of a little extra defense makes me feel more secure.

[Taryn]

Hmmm. Being quoted as having said that shields are "probably useless" for fighters with "a fair amount of defence" has made me uncomfortable, so I'm going to retreat to what I originally said, which was

A shield is probably most useful when facing creatures that occasionally hit you.

Since there has been some misunderstanding about what the 12% figure I posted meant, let me illustrate. Let's suppose that a shield is worth 10 percentage points advantage in defence. Then we get the following table.

The first column is the "real" chance a creature has to hit you. The second column is the observed chance a creature has to hit you (bounded by luck hits and luck misses). The third column is the observed chance a creature has to hit you if you use a shield. The fourth column is the chance a creature has to hit you if you use a shield relative to not using a shield; e.g. if the creature normally hits you 20%, it will hit you 50%=half as much when you use a shield.

-5%5%5%100%
0%5%5%100%
5%5%5%100%
10%10%5%50%
15%15%5%33%
20%20%10%50%
25%25%15%60%
30%30%20%67%
35%35%25%71%
40%40%30%75%
45%45%35%78%
50%50%40%80%
55%55%45%82%
60%60%50%83%
65%65%55%85%
70%70%60%86%
75%75%65%87%
80%80%70%88%
85%85%75%88%
90%90%80%89%
95%95%85%89%
100%95%90%95%
105%95%95%100%
110%95%95%100%
115%95%95%100%

Whether a shield is an advantage to you as a fighter, then, depends on how often you face creatures which more than wiff you, but only occasionally hit you. I vaguely remember a fighter posting that, with Atkus training, you quickly go from only being able to wiff a creature to almost always hitting it. If the same is true for Detha training, then you will rarely be in the range where a shield is useful. On the other hand, if as you get better, you seek out more challenging creatures, so that a fair share of the creatures you face do occasionally hit you (more than wiff hits), then you might sometimes find a shield useful. Also, the value of a shield might depend on what you are doing (e.g. tagging, bricking, coin-hunting, resting, or battling in the colliseum).

I really didn't want to offer explicit advice to fighters, since I'm a healer and only have a second hand view of your experience. Instead, I wanted to answer the question of providing some hard numbers for a shield, so you can better decide for yourself. For me, halving the chance that vermine bite me means that with a shield I can survive a vermine swarm; without one I cannot.

Oh, and since there seemed to be interest, I did another test. I found another large vermine: it bit me 164 times out of 500 attempts when I used a shield, and 203 times out of 500 attempts when not using a shield. The difference is about 8 percentage points. So (combined with my previous test) I think 10 percentage points a reasonable estimate of the advantage of a shield.

Also, as far as I can measure, a shield does not decrease your accuracy to hit (Atkus), nor does it decrease the amount of damage you do (Darkus). It's common knowledge that using a shield decreases your balance recovery (Regia), which may decrease your swings.

Taryn.

[Steady Foot]

This is interesting. I have been testing with and without shield also, kind of to make sure it is really worth it. There does seem to be some percieved difference having a shield.

Having only 160 Detha, it might make more of a difference for me. I have been questioning the shield lately because of my newly aquired Atkus and Darkus ranks. Its seem as I can hit more and harder, the creatures go down faster thus the shield is becoming less needed and the balance it takes more needed.

My thought is the faster and harder you can hit the less need for a shield. Mainly due to the amount of time the creature has to hit you is drastically reduced. So in pack of Artaks, even without a shield, if you can take them out quickly, you are not giving them enough time to hit you.

Two things I have noticed testing my shield:
1) In SF the difference around LV and GV. At the moment, a shield for me seems to make a big difference around large groups of LV and GV.
2) If I am one on one with something I "kill" or "vang" the shield seems to give a little bit of an edge so I don't get hit as often. I am usually running anyway [:)] so balance is not much of an issue.

Probably the more ranks of Detha I have the need for the shield will decrease. So it may only be for new exiles.

I have only seen one type of shield. Are there other types?

[Konoko]

Taryn quickly back-pedals :)
Hmmm. Being quoted as having said that shields are "probably useless" for fighters with "a fair amount of defence" has made me uncomfortable, so I'm going to retreat to what I originally said

Sorry if I partially misrepresented what you had said Taryn. Since I was starting a separate thread, i wanted to quote all the shield info from the other thread... :)

Besides you had summed up your statement in the last sentence of the first time I quoted you before. I still think it's a fair statement that the shield won't be useful to the higher level fighters.

When someone is just starting out, the little bit of detha a shield offiers is a huge amount compared to what you start with. But as the fighter develops, she/he gets more detha and those few points fom the shield aren't as valuable as they once were. Sure you can train a few detha to make up for the shield, but then you'll always get that little bit more detha when you have the shield.


Now I guess is that little extra bit of detha worthwhile when it takes a bit of your regia away? Perhaps to have the best of both worlds, keep the shield unequipped except for those cases where those few extra points of detha would be useful.
Even if you keep the shield and not equip it, it still takes up an inventory spot. But that's the same cost of all items...


Perhaps once I get my goss (about 1200 coins to go!), I'll buy a shield again just in case I find myself somewhere I need it. Or perhaps not - with a goss taking up an inventory spot now, i have even less room :)

Konoko

[Konoko]

Steady posted:
1) In SF the difference around LV and GV. At the moment, a shield for me seems to make a big difference around large groups of LV and GV.
2) If I am one on one with something I "kill" or "vang" the shield seems to give a little bit of an edge so I don't get hit as often. I am usually running anyway so balance is not much of an issue.[\quote]
I have little patience so I tend to keep swinging especially with things in SF, NWF, etc. My regia is quick so even after I swing out, my balance comes back quick.

But at times when I'm almost surrounded with the SF/NWF stuff, I still continue to keep swinging as long as I have an opening to strategically regroup.

Using this style with tougher monsters, a shield would be useful for me :)


[QUOTE]Steady asks:
I have only seen one type of shield. Are there other types?
There are knight shields or something but as far as I know they're the same advantages/disadvantages of wooden shields except look cooler :)

Anyone confirm/deny this?

Konoko

[Taryn]

Originally posted by Steady Foot
My thought is the faster and harder you can hit the less need for a shield.

Oops. Being a healer who hardly ever fights, I forgot a consideration for fighters.[:)] The chance that a creature will hit you increases as you swing and lose balance. If creatures hit you only because, as a result of losing balance from swinging, the chance of them hitting you goes from 5% to 95%, then a shield won't help you. For fighters with alot of Atkus/Darkus, this transition (if it happens at all) could happen in a single swing. So the utility of a shield for fighters also depends on what kind of a fighter you are, and how you've trained.

Taryn.

[Michael]

Originally posted by Taryn

if the creature normally hits you 20%, it will hit you 50%=half as much when you use a shield.

Taryn.

That difference seems WAY high. Shields add 5, maybe 10 detha tops. There is NO way that even 10 detha is going to make something hit me half as much if i am starting to brick it.

Take this from a figher who ahs lots of ranks, and a big chunk of them in defence. A sheild is just about worthless once you have any decent amount of rank.

Michael

[Steady Foot]

A sheild is just about worthless once you have any decent amount of rank.

All the rest of us who don't have as many ranks are coming to that same conclusion. I quess I am still in that transition phase between "thinking" I need a shield and the reality of needing it. It did help as newer exile.

[Taryn]

Michael, I don't think there's a creature out there that, if you stand next to it without swinging, will hit you 20% of the time. If you find one, i.e. something that you're just "starting to brick", try letting it attempt to hit you a couple hundred of times, then equip a shield. I think then you'll notice that creature hitting you half as much.

In your case, I suspect almost all creatures will hit you either 95% of the time, or 5% of the time. That is, the difference between their attack and your defense is way above or below 0-100%, so that only luck hits and luck misses matter. Certainly a shield is useless if that is true. Also, in your case, I suspect your Atkus and Darkus is so high that, the amount of balance you lose in one swing represents far more than 100 percentage points change in your defense. So even after swinging it will still be the case that almost all creatures will hit you either 95% of the time, or 5% of the time.

At what point these things become true for less high level fighters I don't know. But as a guess, I'd say that if it doesn't matter what weapon you use (because the differences between them all are insignificant compared to your training), then you won't benefit from a shield.

For those who switch weapons because which one matters, consider using or not using a shield as appropriate, rather than always or never.

Taryn.

[Michael]

Originally posted by Taryn
Michael, I don't think there's a creature out there that, if you stand next to it without swinging, will hit you 20% of the time. If you find one, i.e. something that you're just "starting to brick", try letting it attempt to hit you a couple hundred of times, then equip a shield. I think then you'll notice that creature hitting you half as much.

In your case, I suspect almost all creatures will hit you either 95% of the time, or 5% of the time. That is, the difference between their attack and your defense is way above or below 0-100%, so that only luck hits and luck misses matter. Certainly a shield is useless if that is true. Also, in your case, I suspect your Atkus and Darkus is so high that, the amount of balance you lose in one swing represents far more than 100 percentage points change in your defense. So even after swinging it will still be the case that almost all creatures will hit you either 95% of the time, or 5% of the time.

At what point these things become true for less high level fighters I don't know. But as a guess, I'd say that if it doesn't matter what weapon you use (because the differences between them all are insignificant compared to your training), then you won't benefit from a shield.

For those who switch weapons because which one matters, consider using or not using a shield as appropriate, rather than always or never.

Taryn.

I used to use my shield mostly for tests, when I was getting close to bricking the "big" critter in there. Rage for 3rd, Fury for 4th. I didnt see much of a difference at all.

Its hard for me to test now, I would have to use something like a night orga lyfe. And there is no fucking way I am gonna let that swing at me 200 times, heh.

But I do agree with the last 2 things you said. If you think it helps use it, but also try things without it from time to time because you WILL out grow it.

Michael

[Ayella]

I agree with Michael. I, without my knowledge, forgot to re-equip my shield about two OOC months ago. I just realized about two weeks ago. Obviously it wasn't that much of a difference, and I really don't think the shield helps me anymore. The BRO in the fourth circle test whiffs me without the shield (amazingly, I must have bribed it at some point) and I just like the extra regia I get without it. I might donate my shield to a healer at some point, since it's obvious that the healers like having them.

[Lex]

Originally posted by Taryn
Michael, I don't think there's a creature out there that, if you stand next to it without swinging, will hit you 20% of the time. If you find one, i.e. something that you're just "starting to brick", try letting it attempt to hit you a couple hundred of times, then equip a shield. I think then you'll notice that creature hitting you half as much.

Your conclusions are way way off. Remember that the higher you go, the wider the range of the "to hit" equation. At your defense level (basically almost none) 10 Detha may help something hitting you 20% of the time go down to 10%. But for something with say, 400 Atkus, it may have a 20% chance of hitting 850 defense and a 10% chance of hitting something with 920 defense. If your total defense is 850 and you equip a shield, you're looking at going from about 20% to maybe 18%, which would probably not be noticeable to even the most attentive experimenter. And certainly not worth a pack space.

And yes, there probably is a creature or two that hits Mike 20% of the time, or more importantly, somewhere between 5% and 95%.

Lex

[Dandelion]

Originally posted by Michael


... because you WILL out grow it.

Michael

If you're a fighter! : )

Dandelion

[Taryn]

Originally posted by Lex
Your conclusions are way way off. Remember that the higher you go, the wider the range of the "to hit" equation

Actually, this is the first I've heard of this assertion. I have been relying on the following equation, which I quote from Braveheart's ClanLord Guide:

The Defense equation: (defense skill + Current Balance) - (attacker's attack skill) = your chance of avoiding an attack.

If this equation is inaccurate (or only approximately accurate for low numbers), then what is the correct equation? And what is your evidence for it? Being a healer, I'll never have high fighter abilities, so I'll never be able to test it myself.

On the other hand, if what you're saying is that creatures of a given class will vary more (in absolute numbers) for more difficult creatures, yes that's an important consideration. A fighter may be able to brick a given Orga Rage at 20%, which (according to my analysis) would make a shield useful, but another Orga Rage might hit that fighter much more or much less. Vermine and large vermine undoubtedly have a smaller range of attack ability.

Originally posted by Lex
But for something with say, 400 Atkus, it may have a 20% chance of hitting 850 defense and a 10% chance of hitting something with 920 defense.

Where did you come up with these numbers?

If a high level fighter wants to test my shield analysis to see if it holds for high fighter defence vs. high creature attack numbers, I suggest the following. Find a creature that hits you 10-25% of the time. Allow it to try to hit you 200 times, so that you take around 20, 30, 40, or 50 hits. Then equip a shield, and allow it to try to hit you 200 times again. According to my analysis, it should only hit you around 10, 10, 20, or 30 times, respectively. If I'm wrong, it should be obvious.

If you have full Rodnus, I'd be happy to be one of the healers keeping you up (I don't lose health or spirit backpacking a full Rodnus fighter). This assumes the creature you find doesn't move around, as I'm certain I cannot take a single hit from such a creature. (Hmmm, maybe Rocky Cavern?)

Taryn.

[Lex]

Originally posted by Taryn
The Defense equation: (defense skill + Current Balance) - (attacker's attack skill) = your chance of avoiding an attack.

Since there are no numbers given here, this isn't an equation. It's just an idea of how defense in CL works.

Originally posted by Taryn
Where did you come up with these numbers?

I made them up. It's just used as an example.

Originally posted by Taryn
If a high level fighter wants to test my shield analysis to see if it holds for high fighter defence vs. high creature attack numbers, I suggest the following. Find a creature that hits you 10-25% of the time. Allow it to try to hit you 200 times, so that you take around 20, 30, 40, or 50 hits. Then equip a shield, and allow it to try to hit you 200 times again. According to my analysis, it should only hit you around 10, 10, 20, or 30 times, respectively. If I'm wrong, it should be obvious.


How do you find something that hits you 10-25% of the time except empirically? Even if one gray wyrm hits me 10% of the time, another may hit me 90% of the time. So while your test may have some validity, you may need to do it many times to find the right creature. That's an awful lot of work just to "prove" what I already know to be true.

Lex

[Drablak]

The only thing I can say is: if anyone doesn't want his/her shield anymore I'll take it [:)]

D.

[Sunoril]

Originally posted by Lex


Since there are no numbers given here, this isn't an equation. It's just an idea of how defense in CL works.


Um. Didn't you take algebra in high school? Equations don't have to have numbers in them. Or letters for that matter. "The sum of the squares of the lengths of the sides of a right triangle is equal to the square of the length of the hypotenuse." "The energy equivalent of a given mass is equal to the product of the mass and the square of the speed of light."

Originally posted by Lex

How do you find something that hits you 10-25% of the time except empirically? Even if one gray wyrm hits me 10% of the time, another may hit me 90% of the time. So while your test may have some validity, you may need to do it many times to find the right creature. That's an awful lot of work just to "prove" what I already know to be true.


How do you know it's true? "If 'everybody knows' such-and-such, then it ain't so" (Lazarus Long).

[Hidden]

Originally posted by Sunoril
Um. Didn't you take algebra in high school? Equations don't have to have numbers in them. Or letters for that matter. "The sum of the squares of the lengths of the sides of a right triangle is equal to the square of the length of the hypotenuse." "The energy equivalent of a given mass is equal to the product of the mass and the square of the speed of light."

5a + b = 2c

There, that's the CL defense equation.

Does it help without any actual numbers or ratios of numbers to plug in to it? No.

[Lex]

Originally posted by Sunoril
Um. Didn't you take algebra in high school? Equations don't have to have numbers in them. Or letters for that matter. "The sum of the squares of the lengths of the sides of a right triangle is equal to the square of the length of the hypotenuse." "The energy equivalent of a given mass is equal to the product of the mass and the square of the speed of light."

You are correct. But, the "equation" doesn't give any clue how to substitute real information into it. If you use what may be obvious for "attacker's attack skill", like 100 ranks of Atkus means you put the number 100 in that place in the equation, it doesn't work.

I was trying to point out to Taryn that if you use that 'equation' to figure out the exact # of ranks of Atkus you need to hit something, you'll get it wrong. Especially since percent is usually expressed as a number between 0 and 1, and that equation would give numbers way outside that range almost all the time.

Lex

[Sunoril]

Originally posted by Hidden


5a + b = 2c

There, that's the CL defense equation.

Does it help without any actual numbers or ratios of numbers to plug in to it? No.

/action picks up his baseball bat.[:)]

[Sunoril]

Originally posted by Lex


You are correct. But, the "equation" doesn't give any clue how to substitute real information into it. If you use what may be obvious for "attacker's attack skill", like 100 ranks of Atkus means you put the number 100 in that place in the equation, it doesn't work.

I was trying to point out to Taryn that if you use that 'equation' to figure out the exact # of ranks of Atkus you need to hit something, you'll get it wrong. Especially since percent is usually expressed as a number between 0 and 1, and that equation would give numbers way outside that range almost all the time.

Lex

Well, the equation asserts that you do plug skill levels into it.

(defense skill + current balance) - attacker's attack skill = chance to avoid being hit

I would express the chance in this case as a number between 1 and 100, not as a fraction. This equation might be used, for example to determine a d100 roll the attacker must beat in order to hit you. So

(detha + current balance)- attacker's atkus = d100 roll to beat.

It may well be that this equation does not accurately reflect the actual situation in the game - and it may well be that Braveheart didn't intend it to do so, but only to be a guide. If that's the case, then I suppose Taryn needs to reexamine her assumptions. That's what science is all about. [:)]

[Taryn]

Sigh. I am going to try once more to clear up misunderstandings from my posts.

First, when I said that I was relying on the following equation from Braveheart's Guide,
The Defense equation: (defense skill + Current Balance) - (attacker's attack skill) = your chance of avoiding an attack.
what I meant was I am assuming the defense equation is linear, rather than say logarithmic. While I have not related any of my measurements to Atkus or Detha training, for those who insist on that mindset,

let (D, B, A) = amount of (Detha, Balthus, Atkus) you have trained, including that from other trainers, plus whatever base amounts you started with.

Then the defense equation becomes:
d * D + b * B - a * A = X
where d, b, and a are constants (and the defender is at full balance). And where X is fractional chance of avoiding being hit, except that X = min(X,.95) and X = max(X,.05) so that there are always luck misses and unlucky hits.

An example of a nonlinear defense equation is:
log(d * D + b * B) - log(a * A) = X

Second, when I said that a shield reduced my chance to be hit by 12%, what I meant was add 0.12 to X. I thought this was clear from my obtaining that number by taking a difference of two values of X, rather than by dividing. I am now instead using the expression "percentage points" to reduce confusion.

I'm assuming that armor and weapons affect the defense equation thus:
d * D + S + b * B - a * A - W = X
where S is how much a shield decreases one's chance to be hit, and W is how much a different weapon increases one's chance to be hit. I've measured S to be approximately .10, and W for a longsword vs. a quarterstaff to be approximately .15. [See my other posts for the underlying data.]

Note that for those who insist that a shield equals a fixed amount of Detha ranks, and the difference between weapons is a fixed amount of Atkus ranks, the equation above is entirely consistent with that view. Because,
d * D + S = d * (D + S/d)anda * A + W = a * (A + W/a).

For those who want to know how many ranks of Detha or Atkus a shield or weapon provides, simply determine what the constants d and a are. As a healer, this is beyond my ability, but any fighter should be able to determine a, and any fighter beyond 1st circle should be able to determine d. Note that my analysis and claims are independent of what the constants d and a are.

If I am incorrect that the attack and defense equations are linear, then it may well be true that the change in X will be smaller for large numbers of D, B, and A. For example, if they were logarithmic:
log(d * D + b * B + S) - log(a * A + W) = X

However, linear functions are simplest, and there are innumerable nonlinear functions, so I prefer to start with the assumption of linearity.

I've also already proposed an explicit test of this assumption.

My apologies to all those who've understood all this all along.

Taryn.

p.s. And yes, I am saying that for high level fighters, X may often lie outside of the range 0 to 1, until "luck" min and max is applied. Morever, I'm saying that for high level Atkus/Darkus fighters like Michael, the decrease in B resulting from even one swing might decrease X by more than 1. If any fighters are willing to determine the constants d, b and a above, then we could definitively answer the question how high is "high".

[Lex]

Originally posted by Taryn
what I meant was I am assuming the defense equation is linear, rather than say logarithmic

I believe if you follow how much Atkus it takes "to hit" how much Detha, it is linear. However, the range at which you go from barely hitting more than luck to barely missing more than luck gets bigger. I don't think I can prove it, it's just an observation.

Also keep in mind the variance in critters is more a percentage than a hard number that is the same for all of them. I've seen cave maha vary by what must be 25-30 Atkus, yet you'll never see a rat with 30 more Atkus than another rat. The "to hit" equation is the same but for a fighter to say "I brick rats", he doesn't need much more Detha than when s/he started to brick the weaker ones. To say "I brick sun wyrms" you may need 100+ more Detha than when you started to brick the weaker ones.

When I was newer, boloks were hitting me about 2/3 of the time on full balance, and I decided to get some Detha. After going from 50 to about 80 Detha, they were only hitting me about 1 time in 5. That's a fair reduction (47%) in hits taken on full balance from 30 Detha. Right now the only thing I can think of that hits me 2/3 on full balance is wailing spirits. I do not believe I would have them down to 20% after only 30 more Detha.

Lex

[Michael]

Originally posted by Lex


I believe if you follow how much Atkus it takes "to hit" how much Detha, it is linear. However, the range at which you go from barely hitting more than luck to barely missing more than luck gets bigger. I don't think I can prove it, it's just an observation.

Also keep in mind the variance in critters is more a percentage than a hard number that is the same for all of them. I've seen cave maha vary by what must be 25-30 Atkus, yet you'll never see a rat with 30 more Atkus than another rat. The "to hit" equation is the same but for a fighter to say "I brick rats", he doesn't need much more Detha than when s/he started to brick the weaker ones. To say "I brick sun wyrms" you may need 100+ more Detha than when you started to brick the weaker ones.

When I was newer, boloks were hitting me about 2/3 of the time on full balance, and I decided to get some Detha. After going from 50 to about 80 Detha, they were only hitting me about 1 time in 5. That's a fair reduction (47%) in hits taken on full balance from 30 Detha. Right now the only thing I can think of that hits me 2/3 on full balance is wailing spirits. I do not believe I would have them down to 20% after only 30 more Detha.

Lex

Critters do vary by a %. This is VERY noticable on big stuff were all its stats go into one thing. A cave cobra is a good example. A + or - 10% on a CCs atkus is a LOT. But 10% on a rat or even a zerk isnt shit.

Not only do the number of "ranks" a critter has vary, but also where those ranks go varies too. This is apparent in tests. We have been told by GMs that test critters dont vary, that they are always a "average" (meaning no + or - a % in ranks) critter. But where those ranks go does change from test to test. So one week you might get a rage that you brick easy, but cant hit. And the next get one that is easy for you to hit, but hits you every time. A big part of tests (once you are close) is getting a critter that fits your training.

[Lex]

Originally posted by Michael
Not only do the number of "ranks" a critter has vary, but also where those ranks go varies too.

I always thought it was odd that critter Atkus, Detha, and Darkus vary, but # of swings and Regia don't seem to. Every fury, for example, has exactly the same swings as another. VP always swing twice then pause a short time before the third. Great rocks always swing and then don't get to again until I swing at them exactly 4 times.

Maybe some critter Regia does vary but I can't think of any.

Lex

[Taryn]

Originally posted by Lex


I believe if you follow how much Atkus it takes "to hit" how much Detha, it is linear. However, the range at which you go from barely hitting more than luck to barely missing more than luck gets bigger. I don't think I can prove it, it's just an observation.

Also keep in mind the variance in critters is more a percentage than a hard number that is the same for all of them. I've seen cave maha vary by what must be 25-30 Atkus, yet you'll never see a rat with 30 more Atkus than another rat. The "to hit" equation is the same but for a fighter to say "I brick rats", he doesn't need much more Detha than when s/he started to brick the weaker ones. To say "I brick sun wyrms" you may need 100+ more Detha than when you started to brick the weaker ones.

When I was newer, boloks were hitting me about 2/3 of the time on full balance, and I decided to get some Detha. After going from 50 to about 80 Detha, they were only hitting me about 1 time in 5. That's a fair reduction (47%) in hits taken on full balance from 30 Detha. Right now the only thing I can think of that hits me 2/3 on full balance is wailing spirits. I do not believe I would have them down to 20% after only 30 more Detha.

Lex

If all you're saying is that more difficult creatures will vary more in absolute numbers in their abilities, I agreed with that a long time ago. I'm saying something specific about using a shield. Namely that if a given creature hits you with a fractional chance of X, then it will hit you with a fractional chance of X-.1 if you use a shield, no matter what level fighter you are (where X and X-.1 are limited by luck).

Now, how could this be useful to a high level fighter? Well, suppose you're out solo hunting. And your basic strategy is hit and run (and repeat). But sometimes it tries to hit you first. And sometimes you need to let it try to hit you first, so that it's off-balance enough for you to hit it. Now suppose you come across a creature that hits you 1 time in 5. I'm claiming if you equip a shield, it will hit you 1 time in 10. That's half as many hits.

How likely is this to happen? Perhaps not very often, if you're a high level fighter. But you're running to recover balance anyways; with a shield, you just have to run a bit more. And when it does happen, aren't you going to wish you had a shield?

Case two. You like to be the brick. You let others kill the nasty creature, while it stands there and just wiffs you. [Of course, you get your tag in.] You've advanced to the point where you're able to brick most T's. But this particular T is hitting you 1 time in 5. I'm claiming if you equip a shield, it will hit you 1 time in 10. That's half as many hits. Aren't you going to wish you had a shield? Your healer sure is.

I think a intelligent fighter doesn't decide whether an item is useful or useless. I think an intelligent fighter understands an item, and so knows when it is useful, and when it is not.

Taryn.
(a healer who prefers intelligent fighters)

[Michael]

Originally posted by Lex


I always thought it was odd that critter Atkus, Detha, and Darkus vary, but # of swings and Regia don't seem to. Every fury, for example, has exactly the same swings as another. VP always swing twice then pause a short time before the third. Great rocks always swing and then don't get to again until I swing at them exactly 4 times.

Maybe some critter Regia does vary but I can't think of any.

Lex

Never thought of it before but you are right. Its the same for all of the critters I can think of.

[Michael]

Originally posted by Taryn


Case two. You like to be the brick. You let others kill the nasty creature, while it stands there and just wiffs you. [Of course, you get your tag in.] You've advanced to the point where you're able to brick most T's. But this particular T is hitting you 1 time in 5. I'm claiming if you equip a shield, it will hit you 1 time in 10. That's half as many hits. Aren't you going to wish you had a shield? Your healer sure is.

I think a intelligent fighter doesn't decide whether an item is useful or useless. I think an intelligent fighter understands an item, and so knows when it is useful, and when it is not.

Taryn.
(a healer who prefers intelligent fighters)

Since the brick also has to help kill the critter (and at the very least get their tag in) they have to swing. By swinging they lower their balance and then have to suffer the slower regia of the shield.

Unless the critter swings ultra super slow, the extra balance I recover not using the shield in the time it takes the critter to swing again is more defence than the insignigant amount of defence the sheild adds.

Given that I am one of the strongest fighters in the game, and that my defence puts me in the top 6 or so, I think I have a pretty good idea what works and what doesnt for defence.

The bottom line is that using a shield is a waste of time for a high level fighter. If you do use one, just leave it on. Its far to much of a pain in the ass to take it on and off (and get assfucked by the balance tax) when you need it for the un-noticable difference is makes.

[Luminary]

Originally posted by Lex
I always thought it was odd that critter Atkus, Detha, and Darkus vary, but # of swings and Regia don't seem to.
Have any of you noticed if creature statistic variations change as a unit, or if they vary individually? ie: say a critter "A" had 1.2x "standard A" Atkus, could they have 0.8x "standard A" Detha, or would they also have 1.2x Detha?

I would think that if all their stats varied as a unit, it would explain why the critters would behave the same, regardless of their stats. If a critter had 1.2x the Atkus/Darkus, it would also have 1.2x the Balthus/Regia, giving it the same swing recovery as the "standard" of it's type.

Stats varying as a unit would also be easier for DT to generate. Instead of randomly generating each stat within a range (which would be a bit more realistic), they would just generate a single "critter multiplier" and apply it to all of the critter stats.

[Michael]

Originally posted by Luminary

Have any of you noticed if creature statistic variations change as a unit, or if they vary individually? ie: say a critter "A" had 1.2x "standard A" Atkus, could they have 0.8x "standard A" Detha, or would they also have 1.2x Detha?

I would think that if all their stats varied as a unit, it would explain why the critters would behave the same, regardless of their stats. If a critter had 1.2x the Atkus/Darkus, it would also have 1.2x the Balthus/Regia, giving it the same swing recovery as the "standard" of it's type.

Stats varying as a unit would also be easier for DT to generate. Instead of randomly generating each stat within a range (which would be a bit more realistic), they would just generate a single "critter multiplier" and apply it to all of the critter stats.

I am pretty sure each stat varies, not just the whole critter. This is what would explain the critters in the fighter tests. One week you cant hit the fury and its a wiff fest for both of you till you time out, the next week you land every swing but it hits you every time too.

This has happened to me.

[Luminary]

Originally posted by Michael


I am pretty sure each stat varies, not just the whole critter. This is what would explain the critters in the fighter tests. One week you cant hit the fury and its a wiff fest for both of you till you time out, the next week you land every swing but it hits you every time too.

This has happened to me.

Unless Shadow Dancing and HGM were outright lying...

"Circle test monsters are all the same, all the time." (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl840393071d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8f5685%24ndv%241%40nnrp1.deja.com)

[Lex]

Originally posted by Luminary
Have any of you noticed if creature statistic variations change as a unit, or if they vary individually? ie: say a critter "A" had 1.2x "standard A" Atkus, could they have 0.8x "standard A" Detha, or would they also have 1.2x Detha?

I've noticed that so far any orga that is especially tough for me to hit is also especially tough for me to brick. So yeah, both seem to go up proportionally. I haven't payed much attention to whether or not this is true of other things.

I think you may be right that if all stats go up the same amount they'd end up with the same swing rate.

Lex

[Michael]

Originally posted by Luminary


Unless Shadow Dancing and HGM were outright lying...

"Circle test monsters are all the same, all the time." (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl840393071d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8f5685%24ndv%241%40nnrp1.deja.com)

Like most GM bullshit, its true in its own way. The test critters are all "average", meaning there is no + or - in the % on their stats. But I am sure that where the ranks go varies.

Having taken MANY fighter tests I can tell you for sure that the critters do vary from week to week.

And HGM has been proven full of shit before. It took me almost 3 weeks to convice him that someone had doubled the atkus on the green noids and it was fucking up the test. He told me again and again that nothing had changed (it was so obvious that it had, they were hitting Ziff for fucks sake).

And given how shadowdancing enjoys wiping out parties I dont trust him a whole lot.

[Taryn]

Originally posted by Luminary
Have any of you noticed if creature statistic variations change as a unit, or if they vary individually? ie: say a critter "A" had 1.2x "standard A" Atkus, could they have 0.8x "standard A" Detha, or would they also have 1.2x Detha?

While it's easier for me to let something try to hit me a few hundred times, while self healing, than it is for me to try to hit it (without killing it) a few hundred times, I will try. This will take some time, as I will have to test many instances of the same creature. Not to mention all the other things on my experiments-to-do or experiments-in-progress lists.

But it's a nice question! Thanks!

Taryn.

[Ann]

Originally posted by Michael


Like most GM bullshit, its true in its own way. The test critters are all "average", meaning there is no + or - in the % on their stats. But I am sure that where the ranks go varies.

Having taken MANY fighter tests I can tell you for sure that the critters do vary from week to week.


Nope. Circle test monsters are exactly identical, all the time.

I would add "and always have been," but I seem to remember some bug where they weren't, for an update or so, around v120.

The combat itself is still random, though. If it looks like they're varying, it's just random chance, lucky or unlucky "die rolls".

Ann